Introduction

A good classification system should naturally delimit categories of the subject under study. In astronomy, galactic classification systems are largely based on geometry and special aspects of each galaxy. In biology, classification systems are supposed to resemble as closely as possible the evolutionary relationship between organisms.

This is particularly important in a field such as the study of UFOs. In this field, we desperately need good categories to help us see patterns in the observation which may be obscured by the sheer volume of the data.

Only a few serious UFO classification systems have been advanced. Many classification systems have concerned the geometry of the objects, and have ended up as laundry lists of observed shapes.

The most important UFO classification system was also one of the first. Jacques Vallee's original classification system[footnote 1] was a behavioral classification which largely stayed away from issues of geometry except where those were closely tied to behavior.

The most widely used UFO classification system is also one of the most useless from the perspective of discerning patterns in the data. J. Allen Hynek's system[footnote 2] was designed to classify UFO reports, rather than UFOs. Thus, its sole contribution is to distinguish between apparent proximity of the object, the time of day of the sighting, the presence of traces, or the use of instrumentation.

Vallee later attempted to merge his original system with Hynek's system, and, at the same time, to make it symmetrical - in the sense that every major category had the same minor categories. Unfortunately, the result[footnote 3] was not an improvement on his first effort, and, in fact, the original categories, which needed extending, were, to some extent, obscured by the incorporation of the Hynek categories.

A New System

Sufficient catalogs and literature exist to distinguish a limited repertoire of UFO behaviors. In fact, what is fascinating is that these behaviors fit into a set of categories which at least appear to represent intelligent actions, and which are certainly of a countable number.

This classification system is an "event" oriented system. In other words, it should be used to classify a UFO event, rather than an object.

Orthogonality

A good classification system should be one where it is easy to decide which category best represents an event. Also, it should be rare than an event crosses categories or falls into multiple categories. To the extent possible, these categories have been based on exemplar cases, and are inclusive of object / occupant behavior from arrival to departure. However, a significant population of cases falling between or into multiple categories should signal the need for a new category inclusive of those behaviors. This system is a work in progress, so there are probably still a few of these problems lurking in the wings.

The System

Case Attributes

This part of the classification system incorporates the best of the Hynek and new Vallee systems. Every event has at least one of these attributes, and may have more than one.

Proximity

This part of the classification system incorporates the distance criteria of Hynek's classification system. This is the minimum distance for the event.

Examples

Here are the exemplars, classified in detail:

Response to Reviewer Comments

Some peer review has already been obtained on the proposed system. The following represents a cross-section of objections raised and the author's response:

Anthropomorphism

Perhaps the most serious criticism raised concerning this system was its use of terminology which imply a sort of "personality" to the action of the UFO that cannot be directly substantiated by the UFO data. In this regard, the author faced a difficult choice: use neutral, non-suggestive terminology, which does not imply the characteristics of events falling into a particular class (as Vallee did in his original system, and which may explain some of the resistance to its use), or use terminology suggestive of the human version of the observed behavior. In this regard, the author suggests it be kept in mind that the terms used are meant to be representative of how the behavior would be interpreted if humans engaged in the behavior, not to offer any conclusion as to the nature of the motivation behind the behavior.

At the same time, the author believes that it is important to avoid the paralysis of a relativistic neutrality. An action which appears to be under the control of the UFO and which results in harm to a human is probably safely interpreted as hostility of some sort. Attempts to drag witnesses against their will into a waiting object should rightly be interpreted as a "kidnapping" attempt, even if the intent of the occupants is not otherwise apparent.

Secondly, a debate over the appropriateness of these terms might well be productive. Proponents and opponents would need to bring cases to the table for such a discussion, and examination of those cases in light of these terms might well lead both to advances in the understanding of UFO behavior and the improvement of this classification system. Either or both results would be beneficial.

Difficulty in Applying The Classification System

The most commonly used classification system, Hynek's system, is relatively easy to apply. Unfortunately, it is likely that ease of application is inverse to the strength of the classification system in providing useful insights. Any classification system which will express the range of UFO behavior is bound to be more difficult to apply than one which relies solely on classification by distance or by observational means.

In all scientific classification systems, the process of classification typically requires classification specialists. The development of a cadre of such specialists in the study of UFOs is long overdue, and has been hampered by the lack of a classification system which requires such rigor.

In addition, every classification system has its "grey areas". This system will be no exception. However, the development of a science of UFO study does require debates over the proper placement of UFO events in a variety of classification systems. This system should be provocative of such debates in those areas where classification under its categories is disputable or where methods are unclear. Such debates will be profitable in a number of ways, including developing the classification system, making clear areas of the case under dispute, and perhaps forcing the development of new classes of recognizable UFO behavior.

Conclusion

This classification system is based on observable characteristics of UFO incidents and can help significantly in elucidating patterns, particularly from catalogs, where the full account may be too bulky for inclusion. It reduces the shortcomings of the Hynek and Vallee classifications, while using the best from each, and yet remains sufficiently simple and memorable as to be accessible to those producing and using catalogs. Finally, it has to potential to produce useful discussion and debate, and perhaps even to help stimulate the development of a cadre of classification specialists.

A study is underway to classify a larger number of cases with this system to determine its suitability with such a larger sample size.

Footnotes

1. Anatomy of a Phenomenon, Jacques Vallee, LC#65-19161 and Challenge To Science, Jacques and Janine Vallee, ISBN 0-345-27086-X

2. The UFO Experience, J. Allen Hynek, ISBN 0-345-27361-3

3. Confrontations, Jacques Vallee, ISBN 0-345-36501-1